Biden White House Sandbags Staffers, Sidelines Dozens for Pot Use

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Yashar Ali 🐘
@yashar
Dozens of young White House staffers have been suspended, asked to resign or placed in a remote work program due to past marijuana use.

⁦@scottbix⁩ ⁦@swin24⁩ ⁦@arawnsley⁩ report

Biden White House Sandbags Staffers, Sidelines Dozens for Pot Use
In some cases, staffers were informally told by transition officials some past marijuana use would be overlooked, only to be told later that they were being asked to resign.
thedailybeast.com
8:09 PM · Mar 18, 2021

https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-white-house-sandbags-staffers-sidelines-dozens-for-pot-use

Dozens of young White House staffers have been suspended, asked to resign or placed in a remote work program due to past marijuana use, frustrating staffers who were pleased by initial indications from the Biden administration that recreational use of cannabis would not be immediately disqualifying for would-be personnel, according to three people familiar with the situation.

The policy has even affected staffers whose marijuana use was exclusive to one of the 14 states—and the District of Columbia—where cannabis is legal. Sources familiar with the matter also said a number of young staffers were either put on probation or canned because they revealed they had used marijuana in the past in an official document they filled out for the position in the Biden White House during a lengthy background check.

In some cases, staffers were informally told by transition higher-ups ahead of formally joining the administration that they would likely overlook some past marijuana use, only to be asked later to resign.

“There were one-on-one calls with individual affected staffers—rather, ex-staffers,” one former White House staffer affected by the policy told The Daily Beast. “I was asked to resign.”

“Nothing was ever explained” on the calls, they added, which were led by White House director of management and administration Anne Filipic. “The policies were never explained, the threshold for what was excusable and what was inexcusable was never explained.”

*snip*

[dem4decades]

1. Well that sucks.

[questionseverything]

3. Disappointed

N/t

[TDale313]

4. That's just a stupid policy.

Sorry, not sorry.

[madville]

5. The Administration should abide by the same rules as the military and OPM federal civilians

The military and federal government employees are zero tolerance for marijuana use, why would people in the administration be treated any different than current policy for everyone else? Change it for everyone or hold everyone to the same standard, pretty simple.

[questionseverything]

7. This is for past use

That doesn’t seem right

[ColinC]

9. I know plenty of military and federal civilian employees who smoked pot and admitted to it.

It definitely is not a zero tolerance policy. More like, case by case, as I understand it.

[AZProgressive]

10. You can easily get a waiver for a past cannabis possession charge

Or it was that way during the Iraq war. You can be kicked out for use but most of the time it is an Article 15 and 45 days of extra duty.

[ColinC]

12. That sounds right.

Of course, nowadays, I don't even think a past charge will create many issues. Especially since being charged for marijuana use is such a rare circumstance now. Of course, I don't think I've known anybody who's been charged for it.

[LizBeth]

6. I strongly disagree with this one and really offensive the people were fired using in legal states.

It is wrong.

ONLY time I have criticized Biden, to be clear.

But, this is wrong.

[Cha]

8. OMG.. Who hasn't

smoked or eaten big people's brownies in the past!

That is Ridiculous.

[Ms. Toad]

18. I haven't. n/t

[Cha]

33. Good for you!

[Ms. Toad]

39. Don't know that there's a value one way or another.

but there are some of us who haven't used marijuana. Or smoked a single cigarette.

[niyad]

31. I haven't.

[Cha]

35. Congrats!

[betsuni]

32. I haven't.

Am scared of breaking the law.

[Cha]

38. Great.. nasty stuff.. lol

I ran with the wrong crowd in Florida, California, & Hawaii!

Didn't start until I was 27 and stopped when I was around 50ish.. not everyday, though.

[betsuni]

40. No, it's not nasty stuff.

I am paranoid about breaking the law, that's all -- scared of the authorities. If I were somewhere it was legal, I'd try it.

[Cha]

42. Right.. I was kidding..

& I didn't see the message that you were afraid of breaking the law in your first post.. sorry!

All I saw was "I haven't".

Yeah that would be a big worry.. I stopped long before it was legal.. I'm surprised I didn't get into trouble.

[ColinC]

34. I have.

Something I have in common with Biden's former boss.

[Cha]

41. Right.. excellent point..

President Obama wouldn't qualify to work for Pres Biden under those draconian conditions!

[Raine]

11. Consequences of past "sins", seems to be happening all over the place. 🙄 nt

[PufPuf23]

13. Very unfortunate and sad. nt

[JI7]

14. Reading the article it seems a bit more complicated

things that may have turned up during the security clearance process and inconsistencies .

[elleng]

21. Thanks; facts usually are a bit more complicated.

'The rules about past marijuana use and eligibility for the clearance vary, depending on the agency: for the FBI, an applicant can’t have used marijuana in the past three years; at the NSA, it’s only one. The White House, however, largely calls its own shots, and officials at the time told NBC News that as long as past use was “limited” and the candidate wasn’t pursuing a position that required a security clearance, their past use may be excused. . . Some of these dismissals, probations and remote work appointments could have potentially been a result of inconsistencies that came up during the background check process, where a staffer could have, for example, misstated the last time they used marijuana.'

[betsuni]

25. +1

[marie999]

30. You have to be careful in the VA healthcare system.

Each clinic and hospital has its own policy when it comes to drug use by patients. Our clinic does not care if you smoke grass. Every six months we are tested for all illegal drug use but it only goes in your private file. Other clinics may not be so tolerant. I don't know what they do if you use hard drugs.

[UTUSN]

37. & it's a vicious circle of Catch 22s: PTSD markers can be chemical use & law infractions

but also stigmatized, moralized against.

[OnDoutside]

46. That would make more sense, as one of the former FBI guys iirc was talking about the

background check, and specifically talking about cannabis, he said that it wouldn't automatically disqualify you, as long as you put it down on your Background check form. They are looking for something that could leave you open to coercion by a 3rd party, if you have been hiding it.

[JI7]

51. Yes, I think lying about it or finding inconsistencies in what you said hurts more

than the actual act itself. Like not telling about some shoplifting you did would hurt more than if you did report it.

Nicole Wallace explained this when she had to go through the security checks.

[OnDoutside]

54. Yes, they don't want people who can potentially be blackmailed.

[ColinC]

15. I mean, it could be worse.

We could have a CIC who's addicted to snorting Adderall.

[ColinC]

16. At the end of the day it is a federal offense. A second offense is a felony.

It doesn't surprise me that after replacing one of the most corrupt administrations in history, that they want to keep their noses clean as much as possible.

[ismnotwasm]

17. Then they should sandbag the drinkers too.

[Ms. Toad]

23. Marijuana use is illegal everywhere in the US, popular opinions to the contrary.

Drinking is legal, as long as you are over the state drinking age.

The equivalent would be to sandbag underage drinkers (who were engaging in illegal activity at the time they imbibed.)

(Federal law makes marijuana use illegal, even when prescribed by a physician, even in states which have decided to permit its use under state law.)

[AZProgressive]

26. I understand that it is illegal under federal law

They should make efforts to change that. The Democratic lawmakers, I can understand if they want to handle more pressing matters first.

It is a schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act signed by Nixon which was part of his failed "war on drugs".

[Ms. Toad]

27. But my point is that they are being asked to resign

for engaging in illegal activiies. Drinking (as an adult) is legal - so dumping people because they were drinking (as adults) isn't the same as dumping people because they were using marijuana.

Part of the security clearance process is ascertaining willingness to violate the law (those willing to violate it for one reason are at least presumed to be willing to violate it for other purposes.

[AZProgressive]

28. I personally can't stand alcohol

It is not for me and if you drink too you can get blackouts and make bad choices. If you become addicted you get DTs.

I can understand why people would rather use cannabis than alcohol especially if it is legal under state law.

[Ms. Toad]

29. It isn't about which is more likely to cause harm.

It's about engaging in activity that (at the time engaged in) was illegal. The fact that it is legal under state law doesn't change the fact that it is illegal under Federal law.

Under current policies, all of these students would be disqualified from positions requiring security clearances. Federal adjudicative guidelines on security clearances note that “the illegal use of controlled substances … can raise questions about a person’s reliability and trustworthiness … because it raises questions about a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” The guidelines list conditions that could mitigate security concerns – including that drug use was long ago, infrequent, or unlikely to recur – but each agency determines for itself whether an applicant meets these criteria.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2020/07/22/cannabis-clearances-unnecessarily-weeding-out-applicants/

[OnDoutside]

47. Gambling is probably the most worrying.

[shanti]

19. Oh come ON!

This is beyond stupid. Speak up, Kamala.

[elleng]

20. Not good, if employees RELIED on assurances

'that recreational use of cannabis would not be immediately disqualifying.'

Facts missing, and wondering what POTUS and VPOTUS knew about 'policy.'

(I worked for Fed. govt, and don't recall any such.)

NOTE, in article: 'The rules about past marijuana use and eligibility for the clearance vary, depending on the agency: for the FBI, an applicant can’t have used marijuana in the past three years; at the NSA, it’s only one. The White House, however, largely calls its own shots, and officials at the time told NBC News that as long as past use was “limited” and the candidate wasn’t pursuing a position that required a security clearance, their past use may be excused. . . Some of these dismissals, probations and remote work appointments could have potentially been a result of inconsistencies that came up during the background check process, where a staffer could have, for example, misstated the last time they used marijuana.'

[Indykatie]

22. This is BullSh*t Now That Recreational Weed is Being Legalized in More States n/t

[Ms. Toad]

24. It is still illegal eveerywhere in the US under Federal law. n/t

[ailsagirl]

45. So in states which have legalized it...

anyone who smokes it is breaking the law? Then why aren’t they arrested?

This is confusing to me. 🤔🙄

[herding cats]

61. It can still ban them from a federal position.

That's the difference between state law and federal law. Your reality is not the only one.

I fail to understand why this is so confusing to people. It's literally a 101 level law issue.

What we need to do is make it no longer illegal on a federal level, but right now that's not a front burner issue. Not because it's not important, but just due to the other much more vital issues we're working to fix at the moment. Trump left us a dumpster fire which will take some time to put out.

[herding cats]

64. Ah, thank you so much for the kind feedback!

I'm truly glad I was of some help here.

[uponit7771]

52. More to it, read post 14 ... More MSM rodent sex

[catbyte]

36. It sucks, but it still is against federal law. I can't smoke pot to see if it eases

my chronic pain if I want to continue with my pain meds. The DEA monitors patient records and if it sees me with a positive drug test for pot, the pain clinic and I would be in trouble federally even though it's legal in Michigan.

[myccrider]

57. My pain clinic allows marijuana use and still prescribes opiates.

I have no idea how they get around the Feds but it isn’t very unusual here in California. When I found that marijuana allowed me to reduce my opiate use by more than 50% and the pain doctor I had at the time objected, it took less than a week to find another, better qualified and more empathetic, doctor who has no problem with it.

Edited to add that marijuana is legal for recreational use here.

[catbyte]

60. Pain clinics that will actually prescribe pain medication here in Michigan are so few

and far between I have to drive 70 miles one way every 3 months as it is. Plus, I trust my doctor. I've been seeing him since 1994.

[myccrider]

63. That really sux.

The part about so few choices, not the part about trusting your doctor. Finding a doctor you can trust and who treats you with empathy and respect when we need these medications can be a struggle.

My point was that my doctors don’t seem to be worried about the Feds coming and arresting them for allowing patients to use marijuana for pain relief. I’ve heard that there are other doctors around who are acting the same.

You do have a point that if the US gov wanted to make an issue out of this, they *could* visit a lot of negative consequences on these doctors, but even under Trump, they didn’t pick that fight.

[catbyte]

65. You're lucky in California. The DEA has been breathing down the necks of pain doctors

here in Michigan for years. Pain clinics are easy targets for the DEA and they really have been brutal here in Michigan. Many pain clinics will no longer prescribe opiates because of the hassles. My pain doctor has even taken to cutting back seeing pain patients to one day a week; the rest of the week he's an anesthesiologist at a nearby hospital and I'm one of the few patients that remain of his. It puzzles me why they're leaving California alone.

[myccrider]

66. That *is* weird!

Maybe there’s a DEA personnel difference for different regions of the country, like the different Federal District Courts or U.S. Attorneys may emphasize different crimes? IIRC, the Obama admin chose to not fight with the different states about legalizing marijuana and instructed Federal law enforcement to not waste time with these infractions? And you just happen to have a zealot in charge of the DEA in your area?

Maybe Michigan state law wrt opioids was tightened up, too? I remember there were a lot of changes to state laws when the CDC changed guidelines for prescribing opioids that went way farther than what the CDC said. California tightened up some, but didn’t go as bonkers as some states did.

I don’t know why the differences exist, it’s not fair that you have so much trouble getting medication and I have fewer obstacles. I did have to leave my previous doctor because he was more interested in getting me to stop taking opioids than in helping me control my pain. That’s why I tried marijuana in the first place, because he was trying to force me to reduce my script without any help on controlling the pain (all other treatment options had been tried and eventually failed as my disease progressed). With marijuana I can control the pain with less than half the opioids I was using previously.

Congress needs to change the designation of marijuana. It’s so idiotic to keep it scheduled at all, since it’s much less destructive than alcohol or tobacco and less addictive than caffeine! The worst side effect I have is the munchies!

And the LD-50 (dose at which 50% of people die) for marijuana is unknown for sure, but it’s really large. AFAICT, there has never been a clear-cut adult death that could be ascribed to an MJ overdose, while dozens of people, combined, die each year from aspirin, ibuprofen and Tylenol overdoses.

[Sibelius Fan]

43. I guess we know what story Bill Maher will be leading with tomorrow night.

[tblue37]

44. Ridiculous move.

[dameatball]

48. The article seems unclear if the standards used prior to hiring were changed after the hiring took

place. If so that seems unfair. Possibly the background checks are lengthy enough that they could not be completed prior to hiring and the positions needed to be filled to get the administration staffed(?). Otherwise it does seem to be a case of moving the goalposts.

IMO, the country is basically having growing pains on the marijuana issue and inconsistencies exist that are going to trip people up. For instance, in Florida it is technically illegal for recreational use but with a doctor's prescription I can go to any mid-sized city and purchase it for medical reasons. Who is to say where the gray areas are for why one actually uses it? in my case I qualify due to a ruptured cervical disc that causes a pain issue. I have the card, whoop de doo, but have not used it. I just felt like I would like a possible option other than increasing my meds if things get worse. I also may just decide I want to catch a buzz which I have not done since the 80's. Several hundred thousand Floridians have the same card....completely legal. So.....wink, wink......and the physician and state make a killing.

Regardless, I hope this administration eventually takes a more open minded view on the issue.

[Hortensis]

49. Unfortunate, but pot users can't get a top secret clearance to work

in the White House. Hires were reportedly told they should be able to work in positions that didn't require a security clearance (apparently at all), which of course would not be in the WH.

As for waiving the requirements, perhaps directly after Trump trashing security altogether is not a good time for another president to blow off security regulations, not when marijuana use is illegal under federal law. This is just being reported and investigative journals haven't weighed in.

It seems extremely likely we'll be prosecuting Trump staffers for security clearance violations, including ignoring and inappropriate waiving of regulations.

Parents and school counselors can't think of everything. I feel really sorry for people who thought it'd be okay and now will be shifted to remote positions to work; presumably no one thinks they did anything wrong except for the marijuana issue.

I don't know yet what to think about "several" being asked to resign, or those currently suspended, but top secret (!) clearances require pretty intensive background investigations, including field interviews of people who know you. My husband had one.

[Celerity]

50. No clue why people are acting surprised. Biden has been anti-weed

for decades. It was part of the package that we got with him.

I feel bad for the the staffers who got sacked, but that is the way the cookie crumbles when a 'war on drugs' stalwart (for decades) is in charge.

[progressoid]

67. True.

I didn't have high (no pun intended) expectations for this administration regarding weed. His milquetoast responses to weed issues during the campaign showed that he wasn't really going to be a friend of the cannabis user as president.

[aocommunalpunch]

53. I want to know who thinks this is a good idea.

I see tons of criticism, so where’s the upside to this? It’s like the modern idea of compromise: bend over backward to satisfy the opposition and they give you shit, anyway. Personally, I try to avoid kicking myself in the balls.

[Meowmee]

55. Yet another example of how stupid

This country can be

[Blue Owl]

56. I'd like to know why Joe is so anti-cannabis

There must have been some incident or experience in his past that really soured him on marijuana...

[Tree Lady]

68. Son has past drug problems

I think he is old school that believes pot starts the path.

He reminds me of my dad, we use to have arguments over pot vs booze when I was a teen in the early 70's.

[speak easy]

58. What about the last time they used Adderall?

The is why decriminalization is not enough. Whether it is marijuana or alcohol, there is no excuse for being intoxicated on the job. But being disqualified for past use 'non-crimes' is not good enough.

[Politicub]

59. This should not be allowed to stand. This kind of retaliation belongs in

the past.